Hello GustavRichter,
I'm not a super expert in QM (even though I'm studying to get there) but I've read a lot about this Orch-Or theory
and I've really been fascinated by it. I think the theory is not very famous and it's just making its way through the science community,
just because it "mixes" QM with consciousness and the self. It may be deemed to be a bit new age, trying to give an explanation of how this
strange phenomenon of awareness was born. Personally, I don't see the theory as a new age thing. I just wanna see
things in a clear way and if this means breaking the mainstream view which, sometimes, doesn't even address the
problem of consciousness directly, I'm happy to do so.
I think it's a hard question for a quantum physicist, to give a personal opinion about the theory.
That's because it does not only involve QM, but also that complex piece of flesh that we have in our cranium.
It does not only involve quantum entanglement and the problem of decoherence and superposition, but also
the structure of the microtubules and the "environment" in which the orchestrated objective reduction must take place, the brain.
That's the reason why Sir. Penrose is a mathematician/physicist and Dr. Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and is more
competent in the studies of the brain structure and functions.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't just put aside the theory, only because it's a bit non-mainstream, you know.
It still hasn't been attacked in such a way to say "It has more evidence against it than in its favour" and it's, probably,
one of the few candidates right now. I mean, if QM rule the universe, why shouldn't it rule our brain and mind too?
(if we find the real evidence of some sort of collapse of this brain function).
There's been this experiment (maybe you've heard of it, if not I recommend you check it out) called
the "double slit experiment" which showed, simply put, that a particle behaves as a wave if you don't make a measurement on it.
That means that a single particle exists in different states and interferes with itself until you measure it,
until you have certain information about its position. What does it mean?
Some have come to the conclusion that consciousness has to be involved in some kind of way
(even though it's not very clear, at least to me, whether a conscious observer is needed in order to make reality
behave in a certain way or not) or maybe that this could be the key to understanding it.
The point is, that QM is probably the weirdest thing that scientists have found since the origins of the studies
and it is still not completely understood. On the other hand, consciousness also has a great reputation for
being mysterious, because it is something subjective and not easy (at all) to measure in an objective, absolute way.
Let's put the two together and see what comes out (why not?)..
I've read that the theory also involves quantum gravity, which makes everything a bit more difficult, since we don't really have a theory
for quantum gravity.. It's still an open study I guess. I like the theory because it's new and quite original,
but I cannot say that I'm completely convinced until, we find striking evidence for it.
Right now, it's all about if you think of consciousness as some secondary not-really-important event, or
as a fundamental matter (as it is in the theory, because it also revolutionizes the nature of reality at a fundamental level).
Hope mine wasn't only blathering and that it was of some kind of help.